NY Times: Soviet Spy is a Hero

Does the New York Times believe that anything detrimental to the well-being of the United States is to be celebrated? It would seem so. Whether the Times is betraying secret programs designed to protect America from Islamic terrorists or leading the charge for full access to American courts for alien enemies, their actions all seem intended to weaken America and strengthen America's enemies. This belief is on full display today with their loving portrayal of the life of Soviet spy George Koval, a trained Soviet agent who was responsible for the USSR's successful theft of the atomic bomb. As the Times writes,

He had all-American cover: born in Iowa, college in Manhattan, Army buddies with whom he played baseball.

George Koval also had a secret. During World War II, he was a top Soviet spy, code named Delmar and trained by Stalin’s ruthless bureau of military intelligence.

Atomic spies are old stuff. But historians say Dr. Koval, who died in his 90s last year in Moscow and whose name is just coming to light publicly, was probably one of the most important spies of the 20th century.

George Koval was a spy for the Soviet Union, and yet the Times never condemns Koval for his betrayal of the United States- a country that gave his parents refuge, and allowed him to gain a career as a highly regarded nuclear physicist. Instead, the Times writes of Koval,

Dr. Koval died on Jan. 31, 2006, according to Russian accounts. The cause was not made public. By American reckoning, he would have been 92, though the Kremlin’s statement put his age at 94 and some Russian news reports put it at 93.

Posthumously, Dr. Koval was made a Hero of the Russian Federation, the highest honorary title that can be bestowed on a Russian citizen. The Kremlin statement cited “his courage and heroism while carrying out special missions.”

Dr. Kramish surmised that he was “the biggest” of the atomic spies. “You don’t get a medal from the president of Russia for nothing,” he said.

The comment that Koval was "the biggest of the atomic spies" is as critical as the Times can allow itself to get. There is no discussion in the article of how badly Koval's betrayal hurt the United States, and the Times does not even consider the negative effects of Koval's spying. They only state that

By 1934, Dr. Koval was in Moscow, excelling in difficult studies at the Mendeleev Institute of Chemical Technology. Upon graduating with honors, he was recruited and trained by the G.R.U. and was sent back to the United States for nearly a decade of scientific espionage, from roughly 1940 to 1948.

How he communicated with his controllers is unknown, as is what specifically he gave the Soviets in terms of atomic secrets. However, it is clear that Moscow mastered the atom very quickly compared with all subsequent nuclear powers.

In addition to its failure to present Koval's spying in a negative light, the Times mainly presents Koval as the Soviet Union would have wished- a Hero. I can only surmise that, for the Times, anything that hurts America is to be celebrated.

In contrast, consider the Times' reporting of America's recent Congressional Medal of Honor winner, First Sergeant Paul Smith, who received a much less gushing story when reports of his heroism reached the Times. Smith, who is the first Medal of Honor winner since 1993 (the medal is extremely difficult to earn and most are present, like Smith's, posthumously), gave his life protecting his fellow Americans and was responsible for the defeat of a force of elite Iraqi Republican Guards in defense of the Baghdad Airport. Yet the Times's report of Smith's Medal of Honor- the highest award for gallantry an American can receive- contained fewer references to heroism than did the story on Koval. Yet Smith gave his life defending his country and his fellow Americans. Koval did his best to help an unfriendly power defeat his adopted country and lived a comfortable life in the USSR as a professor and soccer fan. Who's the real hero? To the New York Times, it is apparently Koval. I disagree. To me, it is Sergeant Smith- Koval is nothing more than one more traitor.

Hat tip to NewsBusters reader Denney Abraham. Cross-posted on NewsBusters.

Media Silent on Military Good Samaritanship

Reuters is busy smearing the troops by claiming they opened fire on civilians. But while accusations of misconduct are always good for several months worth of front-page stories, somehow the media never has time to comment on the many good deeds that the United States Armed Forces perform all over the world. And unfortunately, the US military does not do as well as we would wish at getting the word out. A case in point is the story posted on the United States Navy's site today, as USS Stout (DDG 55), came to the assistance of a Tanzanian passenger ferry off the coast of Somalia. As the Navy reported,

Spice Island, which was carrying no passengers, hailed for engineering assistance when it ran out of fuel while transiting to Tanzania. Stout provided the crew with food, water and fuel and helped to get the vessel operational under its own power. Coalition forces have a long-standing tradition of helping mariners in distress by providing medical assistance, engineering assistance and search and rescue efforts.

This is worthy of being reported, and once upon a time, maybe the media might have done so, instead of spending their time bashing the forces that allow them to propagate their poisonous penmanship. But at the present time, the media is too busy tearing down to think of actually reporting something that would reflect some credit on the many men and women who take seriously the idea of actually doing something to help their fellow Americans. Most journalists, unfortunately, do not qualify for that role.

Most Americans Believe Iraq Victory Possible: Press Misses Story

A new Zogby Poll says that 54 percent of Americans believe Iraq is not a lost cause. However, the mainstram media have so far not managed to report much if anything on the startling new poll.

A majority of Americans - 54% - believe the United States has not lost the war in Iraq, but there is dramatic disagreement on the question between Democrats and Republicans, a new UPI/Zogby Interactive poll shows. While two in three Democrats (66%) said the war effort has already failed, just 9% of Republicans say the same.

Many Democrats, seeing the fact that the surge appears to be working, have realized that their defeatist attitudes and willingness to surrender may cost them dearly in the enxt election, have changed their tune somewhat, or, like the New York Times, have merely moved the goalposts of what constitutes victory. However, the major media, who have been overwhelmingly in favor of a precipitous defeat seem to be a little slow in reporting that their years of negative reporting and defeatism have not yet managed to dissuade a majority of their countrymen from wanting to win.

As of 1637 Pacific time today, the New York Times had still not put the new poll on its front page. ABC News seems to think that audio of Senator Craig's police interview is more compelling- they also have not yet mentioned the new poll. MSNBC also has not yet posted anything regarding the new poll; neither has CBS News, which has had time to post a top story about a teenager who posted a nude picture of his ex-girlfriend on MySpace. CNN also has the Senator Larry Craig story front and center- not a mention of the new Zogby poll.

So let me recap- bad news about how Americans view the Iraq conflict gets front page coverage. The news that most Americans believe the United States can win is ignored? Just another day for the liberal media, I gather. Cross-posted on NewsBusters.

Helping Out the AFP

What was Agence France-Presse (AFP) thinking? Well, maybe they weren't! AFP ran a picture on August 14, 2007 of an old Iraqi woman holding two bullets that supposedly hit her house. The only problem was- said bullets were in fact unfired cartridges! In the wake of this embarrassing incident, two theories regarding the AFP's story have emerged. The more generous-minded posit that it was a simple mistake. Those of us who possess slightly more cynicism suspect nefarious motives- such as a deliberate attempt by an al-Quaeda-sympathetic photographer to plant a false story.

The Dissident Frogman has determined that the cause must be crass ignorance, for as he says, "I simply do not believe these people could release such a screaming obvious mendacity to a worldwide audience, and hope they could get away with it." He has therefore put together a small (and utterly hilarious) video which purports to instruct the AFP personnel responsible both on the difference between cartridges and bullets and on publishing real news versus false propaganda. But the worst aspect of the entire affair is in the press' ignorance. As Dissident Frogman writes on his blog,

This is where the real shocker lies: for even if we assume that they could be honest and unbiased, if these Great Professionals™ who make their trade and pride of reporting on worldwide crises — that are bound to involve, more often than not, individual weaponry of various make and caliber — can't even tell the difference between a bullet and a cartridge, can you just imagine what else — and how much — they ignore?

We can live with a dishonest press — as long as we know it — but ignorance from those who pretend to inform us?

Ignorance indeed. As this has been well-exposed, I shall not linger on it, but it is worthwhile to think on the supposed expertise of the worldwide press. i have wondered if the ignorance that seems to affect so many so-called professional reporters is due to their reliance on technology for their infromation, and the loss of the individual expertise that many reporters used to have regarding their subjects. It is illuminating, however, that the tory was apparently designed to insinuate that it was US or Coalition forces who fired on the old woman's house. Would we ever see a report where al-Quaeda or 'insurgent' forces were actually portrayed as the villains? We're waiting...

Hat tip to Blue Star Chronicles via NewsBusters.

HuffPo Calls for Coup de Etat

I missed this when it happend, but thank goodness Glenn Reynolds and Captain Ed Morrissey did not. A left-wing bloger called Martin Lewis wrote an entry calling for the United States military Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) to arrest George W. Bush. Lewis's main point was apparently that the Joint Chiefs of Staff have the power to remove the President from his command. Lewis wrote,

General Pace - you have the power to fulfill your responsibility to protect the troops under your command. Indeed you have an obligation to do so.

You can relieve the President of his command.

Not of his Presidency. But of his military role as Commander-In-Chief.

You simply invoke the Uniform Code Of Military Justice.

The United States Code: Title 10, Subtitle A, Part II, Chapter 47, Subchapter X, Section 934.

Article 134 reads:

"Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court."

It appears that Mr. Lewis somehow believes that the Uniform Code of Military Justice (something that would have applied to Massachusetts Senator John Kerry's antics in the Winter Soldier fiasco) somehow allow the JCS to arrest a sitting United Sates President. Further, he is calling for what amounts to a military coup de etat. Possibly he is unfamiliar with Section II, Article 2 of the United States Constitution, which clearly states

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

Captain Ed Morrissey's response to Lewis' ignorance and mind-boggling calls for coup is worth quoting, as he wrote,

Lewis quotes extensively from the Uniform Code of Military Justice, but clearly his scholarship does not extend to the Constitution. The command of the armed forces follows from the president's election to office, and cannot be separated from the office itself. Bush isn't C-in-C because he got appointed to that position, but because the American electorate voted him into that role. In other words, the military cannot arrest the C-in-C but leave the President in power, and to argue otherwise is to demonstrate complete ignorance.

Secondly, the President does not serve at the pleasure of the Joint Chiefs -- and indeed, the military is subservient to the civilian command structure. They do not have arrest authority over the President -- nor over anyone else in the US other than military personnel, as the Posse Comitatus Act stipulates. Civilian oversight keeps the military from seizing power and is a long and vital tradition in this nation. It's what keeps us from becoming a banana republic, run by military strongmen.

Quite correct. What Lewis called for is no more and no less than the abandonment of the principles that cause the United States to be far above the so-called "republics" ike Hugo Chavez' Venezuela or Fidel Castro's Cuba- countries where the executive is uneleceted and kept in poweer only by the threat of the army (or the secret police in the case of Chavez). The United States has a long tradition of civilian preeminence over the military- as eveidenced by the firing of Douglas macArthur. And this tradition goes back further than Ledwis might think. The fledgling United States first met that threat when George Washington helped squash a plot of his officers to become king. Washington's actions set the civilian oversight and control of the military into stone, and yet Lewis would have us go the way of the banana republic, where the elected government is merely the thrall of the army, as Republican Rome eventually became when Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon.

I guess the Left is not only ignorant of the United States military but has a more than passing ignorance of the bedrock laws of this country. Or maybe they truly believe that laws are made to be broken unless they suit the Left's political ends. No matter what the thoughts that guided the writer of this scurrilous piece, they should be anathema to most Americans- no matter what their political persuasion. Otherwise, we are doomed to the same fate that eventually met ancient Rome. And I can't think that Lewis and his left-leaning allies would like that.

Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds.

NY Times's New Line on Iraq

Now that the military surge led by General Petraeus is clearly succeeding in lowering the violence level in Iraq, the liberal media cheerleaders for defeat are scrambling for a new strategy to convince Americans that Iraq is a disaster. But what line will they choose?

The New York Times has apparently decided that since success on the military end of things is now fairly evident, that it is time to begin chipping away at the poilitcal side. To this end, they have once again utilized their favorite tool, the anonymous source, to try to destroy Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

The Times story, posted on the front page of their web site, is entitled Report Cites Grave Concerns on Iraq's Government. Once a reader gets past the scare-mongering headline, the report continues to cast doubt on the Iraqi government in every way it can, stating,

The administration is planning to make public today parts of a sober new report by American intelligence agencies expressing deep doubts that the government of the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, can overcome sectarian differences. Government officials who have seen the report say it gives a bleak outlook on the chances Mr. Maliki can meet milestones intended to promote unity in Iraq.

Naturally, the Times used an anonymous official to reinforce their position. "“The report says that there’s been little political progress to date, and it’s very gloomy on the chances for political progress in the future,” said one Congressional official with knowledge of its contents."

It is no surprise that the Times uses "an anonymous Congressional offiical". During the course of their campaign for defeat in Iraq and the destruction of President Bush's Adminstration, the Times has rarely dared to actually quote from true named experts, and many of the anonymous experts they have used in the past, such as Michael Scheuer, have been easily discredited once their real names and positions became known. Whereas, by using an "anonymous" expert, the actual espertise fo thier chosen commentator is difficult to discern.

It appears that the Times has decided that since military success is virtually impossible to deny, that it is time to attack the civilian authorities, despite the fact that they too have made great strides since the beginning of the campaign. al-Maliki has managed to reach out to Sunnis and hang on to his own Shi'ite support as well, in the process marginalizing the Moqti al-Sadr forces as well. In the Times's view, any American defeat that hurts the Administration is apparently better than a victory that actually strengthens America.

Hat tip to Matt Drudge.

Bully Russia Tries Again

Russia is no fan of the proposed U.S. missile defense system. This is for very good reason. If the U.S. successfully implements its missile-defense system, then Russia's major weapons are essentially useless against the United States. And Russian influence will become even less than it is at present.

Therefore, it is no surprise that Russia is trying to bully her neighbors into refusing to host pieces of the missile defense system. One of those neighbors is the Czech Republic, which has some experience with being betrayed by the West and dominated by Russia. Today, Russia's military Chief of Staff added to the pressure, incidentally taking sides in the upcoming 2008 Presidential election in the United States as well. And surprise, surprise, he subtlely hinted that Russia would prefer to see a Democrat in the WHite House.

We say it will be a big mistake by the Czech government to put this radar site on Czech territory," said Yuri Baluyevsky, the Russian military chief of staff, after meeting the Czech deputy defense minister, Martin Bartak.

He said the Czech Republic should hold off making a decision until after the U.S. presidential election, scheduled to take place in late 2008. Incumbent George W. Bush will not be running.

"A decision will be made by the Czech side only after the evaluation of all conditions, technical and otherwise," said Baluyevsky.

"I and my Russian colleagues simply ask that that process continue through to October-November of 2008, and I think you can all guess why."

Asked by a reporter to clarify, he said: "I do not exclude that a new administration in the United States will re-evaluate the current administration's decisions on missile defense."

This should provide additional evidence, if any were necessary, that Democrats are widely seen as being surrender-happy, and that most nations correctly understand that Democrats have neither an understanding of defense nor do they have the intestinal fortitude to actually pursue a strong defense. They would rather turn troops into policemen and base American defense on vague ideals of "peace".

And it presents even more evidence that Russia will stop at nothing to return to its formerly prominent position, possibly including the re-occupation of those Eastern European countries that were for so long under its iron fist.

On Joining the Military

Liberals love to tell those who support the war against Islamic extremism that if they support the war they must join the military, otherwise they are a "chickenhawk". Leaving aside the fact that most liberals and leftists were wildly in favor of Bill Clinton's non-UN-approved excursions into Kosovo but were unwilling to join a that time, there is a fair amount of hypocrisy in their current demands that supporters of the military campaign join the Armed Forces.

Mark Noonan over at Battle Born Politics has a wonderful essay on why this question is both disingenuous and impractical. Among other things, Noonan writes,

Leaving aside the fact that even if support for the war is at 33% then there are 10 million military-aged males in the United States who support the war (and, thus, no room for even 20% of them in the military), what the left is doing is revealing its own, totalitarian mindset - that liberal concept, first thought up in the French Revolution, that the State has absolute claim on our lives and property in a time of national emergency. No conservative can actually support such a view - even at times of national emergency, people have right to not participate - that isn't a libertarian position (though libertarians hold to it, as well), but an understanding that while society does have a claim on us, its claim is not absolute.

.

Noonan also points out that the all-volunteer force we currently posses is better trained, better equipped and better motivated than any conscript force could possibly be and that a surfeit of warm bodies encourages commanders to be profligate with those bodies, as we saw in the World War I slaughters on the Western Front. Noonan says that human lives are too valuable to waste. I absolutely agree.

Noonan's fellow blogger Matt Margolis also wrote a post on his own personal views on the question of joining the Armed Forces. Read the whole thing.

In conclusion, leftists and liberals have very little understanding of the makeup of the United States Armed Forces and virtually no expertise in using these forces. If a liberal asks the question, you can try to educate him or her, though the odds are that he or she is too submerged in their fever swamp of choice to actually listen. For the Left, Truth has long been superceded by Desire of What Truth Should Be.

Democratic Defeat

The Democrats and their allies in the so-called mainstream media have long been working to ensure that the United States does not prevail in the Iraqi Campaign, while they simultaneously tell us that they "support the troops". This work was revealed for all to see today by House Majority Whip James Clyburn of South Carolina, who admitted that a strongly positive report by General David Petraeus would "impede his party's efforts to press for a timetable to end the war".

Clyburn was at least honest in admitting that the Democratic party has become without apology the party of defeat. They cannot bring themselves to put the national interest over their narrow partisan goals, and they above all cannot and will not root for American success. if the United States goes to battle, you can count on most of the Democratic Party (including their mouthpieces in the national Press) to do all in their power to make sure America loses.

The Washington Post newspaper reported of Clyburn's comments:

Clyburn noted that Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats. Without their support, he said, Democratic leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal.

"I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us," Clyburn said. "We, by and large, would be wise to wait on the report."

Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be "a real big problem for us."

I have a couple of problems with this. First, why does General petraeus carry weight only among the Blue Dog Democrats and not among the rest of the party? Is this because most Democrats do not respect military leaders, or because they simply will not listen to anything that might support the continuance of the campaign?

Secondly, where is the disapproval from Americans that a national political party has dedicated itself to the defeat of its own people? For that is what the Democrats and their Press allies seek. For some reason they seem to feel that defeating George Bush is more important than defeating Islamic imperialists. Let me remind Democrats that Islam despises most of the causes Leftists and Democrats hold dear, including abortion on demand, gay and lesbian relationships, a free Press (though how much Democrats actually support a truly free Press is in doubt), and an open political speech (here again, how much Democrats really support free speech is in question).

I thank Representative Clyburn for his openness and honesty. However, I am truly amazed that this clear declaration of the Democratic Party's determination to work for the defeat of their own country does not prompt outcry and maybe even criminal charges. Clyburn's comments are an admission that much of the Democratic Party is working to assist our country's enemies. Didn't that used to be called treason?

Congressional Approval

The Press has been telling us for some time about how unpopular President Bush is, with somewhere around 30 percent approval ratings. But what about that wonderful Democratic Congress that they helpd foist upon us back in November? How are the Democrats doing in succeeding the pork-happy Republican Congress that frustrated voters threw out in 2006?

It turns out there is good reason why reporters have been silent of late on Congress. According to a new Gallup poll out today, Congress' approval has hit a record low- only 14 percent of Americans approve of the job they are doing. As a matter of honesty, I must note that this definitely surpasses the numbers of the Republican Congress the Democrats succeeded. In fact, according to Gallup,

This 14% Congressional confidence rating is the all-time low for this measure, which Gallup initiated in 1973. The previous low point for Congress was 18% at several points in the period of time 1991 to 1994.

So, members of the Press. You have been vigilant in keeping the President's depressing approval numbers in the news, though they have barely wavered over the last couple of years. However, when the new Congress came in, their numbers were trumpeted all over the front pages as a mark of their ability to fix things in Washington. Why the sudden silence?

Interestingly, the group of organization that received the highest marks of confidence from the American public in the latest poll? The United States military, which came in at a whopping 69 percent approval. One would think that military-bashers like Harry Reid (D- Nevada) and Nancy Pelosi (D- California) might want to take that into consideration the next time they open their defeatist mouths. After all, the US military in the last four years has overthrown two dictatorships and freed millions of people while being led in a resolute manner by their Commander in Chief. What have Pelosi and Reid accomplished, other than giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States?

Democratic "Support"

Democrats like to claim they support the troops. However, they showed this week that their idea of support is more akin to supporting the enemies of those troops.

Senate majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada sparked the issue by apparently referring to Marine Corps General Peter Pace, the outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as being "incompetent". This characterization apparently took place during a phone call with left-wing bloggers, and as of today, no Democrat has publicly aknowleged that Reid did in fact refer to Pace in that manner.

However, the report appears to be factual, according to a story by Associate Press writer Anne Flaherty on Yahoo! News today, in which

Reid, D-Nev., went further Thursday when he said he was happy to hear of Pace's departure. The majority leader stopped short of calling Pace incompetent and declined to confirm a report in "The Politico" that he had done so earlier in the week in a private phone call to a group of liberal bloggers.

But he essentially said as much when he told reporters that Pace "had not done a very good job in speaking out for some obvious things that weren't going right in Iraq."

The Democrats further showed their unfitness to lead when "Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher, D-Calif., said Wednesday she thought Pace was guilty of a dereliction of duty because of his support for Bush's Iraq policy."

This shows only how out-of-touch the Democrats really are. To show support for one's Commander-in-Chief is definitely NOT a dereliction of duty, and if Ms. Tauscher had any real knowledge of war and strategy, she would know that. The Joint Chiefs of Staff are bound to defend their country and they swear an oath to that effect. In addition, reports from independent sources show that the Iraq campaign is not the disaster that the Democrats and their media enablers like to pretend. Ms. Tauscher also showed where the Democrats' real priorities lie when she said

Pace lost standing among members in March when he said homosexual acts were immoral and that the military should not condone the behavior by letting gays serve openly.

If Democrats spent as much effort defending the United States as they do trying to censor people's honest opinions, then maybe we would not have such worries about their fitness for high office.

Operation Overlord

The United States is often condemned these days as an oppressor and imperialist. However, we must remind these critics, many of whom reside in Eurpoe, that were it not for a certain operation whose anniversary falls today, most of them would still be speaking German.

I refer of course to the greatest liberation operation ever attempted, the invasion of Normandy that began on June 6, 1944. Involving over 2700 ships, the invasion, code-named Operation Overlord, was the greatest amphibious landing in history. Memorialized by correspondent Cornelius Ryan in his epic book The Longest Day, which inspired a film of the same name, the invasion featured some of the fiercest fighting and greatest bravery of the entire war. On D-day alone over 2400 men were killed at Omaha Beach- nearly as many as have been lost in three years in Iraq. One wonders how the defeatist journalists and pundits of the present day would have spun the awesome casualties taken by the Allies on D-Day. Fortunately, American leaders and journalists of that era were both more patriotic and possessed of more intestinal fortitude.

Today, few remember the sacrifices made by the many men who died in the invasion of France in 1944. But were it not for the efforts of Allied troops (most of whom were British, American and Canadian) in 1944, Hitler's National Socialists might still rule Western Europe. So I remind the Europeans who are so quick to criticise us today- would you rather that we had not liberated you sixty years ago? For Europe, like Iraq and Kuwait, was under the thumb of a brutal dictator, and I can only imagine how the UN would have dealt with that situation, since Hitler would have been entitled by the UN's logic to fill the Security Council seat of France as well as his own.

Remember Midway!

I have just been reminded by a tremendous post from John in Carolina that I neglected to mark one of the signal events in American history, the Battle of Midway, which took place on June 4-6, 1942.

In that battle, which took place without any ship of either fleet actually sighting each other, an American force of three carriers (USS Enterprise, USS Yorktown and USS Hornet) and associated smalled ships defeated a much larger Japanese force bent on invading Midway island.

This battle, coupled with the Guadalcanal campaign later that same year, marked the end of Japanese expansion in the Pacific. Though Japan would enjoy more success, they were never again on the offensive and the United States had finally turned the corner towards eventual victory. As John writes,

The battle at Midway was one of World War II’s most decisive battles. America's victory there halted the Japanese offensive that began at Pearl Harbor, and enabled the Allies to begin their advance toward Japan.

Beginning on June 4, the battle lasted for three-days. Its decisive action occurred that first day so we mark June 4 as the battle's anniversary.

We must always remember the heroism of the outnumbered, outgunned American fleet, especially the bravery of the torpedo bombers who sacrificed their lives almost to the last man in order for the dive bombers to deliver the fatal blow. Heroism is often forgotten, but the incandescent bravery and patriotism of the American fleet at Midway should stand ass long as the United States itself.

It has become accepted to denigrate the men and women who choose to wear the uniform, but I must ask when a journalist has ever personally acted to ensure free speech or when a politician has ever personally acted to secure free elections. It is the soldier who guarantees these rights, and their sacrifice should be honored, no matter if the eenemy is racist militarism as it was in Imperial Japan, world Communism as in the Soviet Union or Islamic fundamentalism as we face now. Barbarism is barbarism no matter what face it wears or what corrupt ideology it hides behind. And our soldiers are the best guarantor of our safety from barbarism in all its forms.

Hat tip to John in Carolina.

Happy Memorial Day

Posting will be non-existent over the coming weekend, so I wanted to take this opportunity to wish everyone a very happy Memorial Day. This year, Memorial Day occurs on Monday, May 28.

Memorial Day was first established by order of Union General Robert Logan in 1868, and was first celebrated on May 30 or the same year. The first state to recognize it was New York, in 1873, and by 1890, all of the Northern states recognized it. It became a national day of remembrance following World War I, when it changed to a day of remembrance for all American war dead, not just those in the Civil War.

On this day, it is a time to consider the sacrifices of this great nations sons and daughters on the field of battle. From the Revolutionary War, through the brother-on-brother bloodshed of the Civil War, the triumphs of the Second World War and the un-announced losses during the Cold War, and continuing today in Iraq and other far-flung duty stations, our soldiers have performed bravely and honorably. As we now are in the first years of a new millenium, I want to express my gratitude and that of my family to those who have stood guard over us, andd to say thank you.

Were it not for these brave men and women, we would now not be able to say we are citizens of the greatest nation on Earth. All the benefits of our society flow directly from these men and women who are willing to lay down their lives that we may enjoy the fruits of freedom. Freedom is not free- only surrender and submission come without a fight. So enjoy your three-day weekend, but don't forget to say thank you to these brave members of American society yourself. Thank you and Happy Memorial Day!

Pen and Sword

Defense Secretary Robert Gates addressed the commencement ceremonies at the United States Naval Academy this year with the following remarks:

"remember the importance of two pillars of our freedom under the Constitution: the Congress and the press."

"Both surely try our patience from time to time, but they are the surest guarantees of the liberty of the American people," Gates told the 1,028 graduates during a sunny ceremony at the Navy-Marine Corps Stadium in Annapolis, Md.

These are nice remarks, but ir could be of more value perhaps if Gates had delivered them to Congress or the Press. It is not the military who has run amok during the last six years, doing everything in their power to destroy the Bush Administration and bring the United States to defeat in the war agains Islamic terrorism. On the contrary, while the current problems are due largely to the Press' refusal to honestly report the situation on the ground, and their amazing determination to betray the secrets of the war against terrorism, the current chances of success are due entirely to the dedicated men and wmone of the United States Armed Forces.

Certainly the military must remember that they report to the elected officials of the United States. But historically, we have had few problems with that. By contrast, the imperial Press has proven itself an enormous problem to the health of this nation over the last forty years. And Congress' refusal to take responsibility is of equal importance. We elect our leaders to make decisions for us. If they cannot or will not do so, then they need to be recalled and replaced. That is the value of elections. Certainly the Press and Congress are pillars of democracy in theory. But if the pillars do not perform their responsibilities as they should, they serve only to undermine, not to strengthen.

Going forward, I am certain that the new graduates of the United States Naval Academy will serve our nation and its people honorably and well. I am not so sure about the recent graduates of the nation's journalism schools.

A Policy of Strength

Bernard Lewis, Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University has written an article in the Wall Street Journal regarding our problems with the Middle East. Professor Lewis' principal thesis is that Islamic thought has long considered the United States weak. This theory dates back to the Cold War. Professor Lewis writes,

During the Cold War, two things came to be known and generally recognized in the Middle East concerning the two rival superpowers. If you did anything to annoy the Russians, punishment would be swift and dire. If you said or did anything against the Americans, not only would there be no punishment; there might even be some possibility of reward, as the usual anxious procession of diplomats and politicians, journalists and scholars and miscellaneous others came with their usual pleading inquiries: "What have we done to offend you? What can we do to put it right?"

Professor Lewis is of the opinion that Muslims such as Osama bin Laden and al-Quaeda considered that in order to defeat and subjugate the West, the U.S.S.R. must be defeated first. They considered the task of defeating the United States would be comparatively easy. This strategy had two parts- drive the U.S. out of the Middle East first and then begin attacking the U.S. itself. However, the U.S. response to the attacks of September 11 took them entirely by surprise. They did not expect it, and the Bush Administration strategy of taking the war to their lands, coupled with our proactive military activity has so far kept them on the run.

Muslims respect strength, whereas they despise weakness. But this image of the United States as strong will only endure as long as our political leaders remain resolute. Professor Lewis concludes by writing,

More recent developments, and notably the public discourse inside the U.S., are persuading increasing numbers of Islamist radicals that their first assessment was correct after all, and that they need only to press a little harder to achieve final victory. It is not yet clear whether they are right or wrong in this view. If they are right, the consequences--both for Islam and for America--will be deep, wide and lasting.

Read the whole thing. I would suggest that we ignore Professor Lewis' analysis at our peril. But are the media and the Democrats listening in their mad rush to declare defeat? Of are they instead like the ancient Byzantines, who were arguing the nature of the Trinity as the Muslim invaders were tearing down their walls, raping their women and subjugating their once-proud empire? Hat tip to Power Line.

Hillary's Military

Hillary CLinton, like most Democrats, is no friend to the United States military. Despite her transparent attempts to paint herself as a defender of the military, her record shows that she has never voted for any funding increases, nor has she ever wiedled her considerable influence to help any branch of the military. However, she is now trying to convince Americans that she would be a strong President in defense of the United States.

Very well, Mrs. Clinton. Since the only evidence of how you might behave as Commander in Ciheif can be found from your role as co-President in Bill Clinton's Administration, let's take a look at how that Administration used the military. David Limbaugh has done the groundwork for us in his excellent article over at TownHall.com, wherein he looks at how the Clinton Administration used the U.S. military.

His findings may surprise. Using U.C. Berkeley law professor John C. Yoo's essay "The Imperial President Abroad" which was published in The Rule of Law in the Wake of CLinton, edited by Roger Pilon as a source, Limbaugh writes that,

Even more noteworthy than the Clinton administration's frequent deployments of our troops in Serbia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Haiti and his cruise missile volleys into Sudan, Afghanistan and Iraq, is that "in none of those cases did Congress provide authorization for the Clinton's decision to use force abroad."

Note that we're not debating the technicality of a formal declaration of war. Clinton didn't get congressional authority at all. I'm out of space, but the specific data on the Clintons' several deployments in the face of congressional disapproval is documented (including the damning vote counts) in the article.

I do not recall any media talking heads or Democrats condemning Clinton's Congressionally unapproved military excursions at the time, but should Hillary be elected and continue the pattern, then I shall be very interested to view the Democratic and media reaction. Not that I expect anything from it, but it will at least expose their hypocrisy.

Some Questions...

Courtesy of my friend Mentok, I am posting the following questions, for discussion together with my take:

Q: What do you think of treating the terrorists by the platinum rule? Meaning, if they're giving us hell, giving them hell via lard dipped bullets, etc.
A: I think this is an excellent idea. My only concern is that we are already winning both the military and the propaganda war in Iraq, and this might push us backward if we hit the wrong folks at all. And that might happen- mistakes do happen in wartime, as we all know. We already know the enemy in Iraq are losing- only the American MSM has apparently not yet read (or more accurately won't report on) the most recently translated al-Quaeda letter, which clearly shows their lack of strength. However, it would be so nice to pay them back in their own coin. And what the h*ll are these idiots at Guantanamo Bay doing still with their Korans? Do any Americans in Iraq get bibles? Or any other Muslim country? Take away those damn Korans. These are terrorists, not POWs!

Q: What do you think of Stephen Colbert and his *ssraping of the US Press Corp on CSPAN?
A: Not having seen Colbert's little "comedy routine" I have no opinion to offer. Mentok says that "not only did he rake President Bush over the coals, he also managed to make a laughingstock of the US MSM." Well, since the MSM already ARE a laughingstock for their blatant bias, their determination to not report the truth and their equal determination to ruin this country, that wouldn't be difficult. However, I will take Mentok at his word. For anyone interested in viewing the routine, Google (yes the hypocritical ChiCom censor enabler for those keeping score at home) has the complete video feed here.

Q: Should the US media be entitled to protection from the United States military?
A: Not anyone from CNN, NBC, CBS, or the New York Times, no. Seriously, if the US MSM insists that they are above being patriotic and that they do not have to support their own country, then why the heck should our soldiers have to risk their lives protecting these useless traitors? The MSM is apparently on very good terms with the enemy- let THEM be responsible for protecting these so-called reporters who only report what they want, not what is true. And if a reporter is traveling with a terrorist group, he/she should be a legitimate target. They certainly would not lift a finger to protect the soldier if they had knowledge of an attack, so why should the soldier lift a finger to protect the reporter? Only if the reporter is embedded and has agreed to follow the military's terms (and that includes reporting both the good and the bad news) should a reporter be entitled to military protection.

Q: Should we repeal the 'Baby Anchor' law?
A: Absolutely. Even though it will require a Constitutional amendment. There is no reason why just being born in the United States should make anyone a citizen- especially not with illegals slipping across the border just to have their babies in US hospitals- which by government fiat cannot ask if they are even citizens! The upshot is that we have just increased our own tax burden with yet another illegal family. Get rid of the baby anchor law and also remove the requirement that healthcare has to available to illegals. If you are not a citizen or legal resident, you should not be entitled to free healthcare. I am a citizen and I don't have it. Why should illegal aliens have benefits that citizens do not?

Q: What to do about Iran?
A: Well, we may not have a choice much longer. I say we give the UN till the end of the year, then start telling Tehran that our forces in Iraq will be moving in unless they unconditionally disarm. And that means a full apology and compensation for 1979 as well. Otherwise, we will remove the mullahs militarily. And let the Iranian people decide who will rule them next. Just like Iraq. And since Iran is the main financier of the "insurrection" in Iraq, there won't be anything a fifth element in Iran since most of the people are much more pro-American that are any other population in the area. Delay is fatal. Remember 1939. Hitler could have been stopped in 1938, but France and Britain did nothing and ended up fighting a six-year war. Can we afford to do that again? Can we afford a nuclear-armed Iran?

Q: What to do about North Korea?
A: Give nuclear weapons to Taiwan, Japan and South Korea. Well, maybe not South Korea. They are a little bit too ungrateful already for my taste. But Japan and Taiwan? Absolutely. The last thing China wants to see is a nuclear-armed Taiwan. And that will make China think twice about whether having North Korea as a client is worth the consequences. Since China will not be helpful, why should we enable their little dreams of power?

Post what you think in the Comments section. As usual, any profanity will be removed. Be polite, be courteous, behave.

Credit for questions 1 and 2 to Mentok.